A Menagerie of Outspoken Opinions on Science, World Politics, and Geek Culture

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Post election, Liberal Myths Die (part 1)

Yet another pillar of the Leftist's peace platform begins to crumble under the weight of honest intellectual scrutiny.

This from a Harvard Associate Professor, no less.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable
(emphasis mine) that terrorism has its roots in
poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors.
However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences...

...Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of
political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism.

Hat Tip to my friend Rug, who never participates anywhere outside of Fark, on the rare times he's not actually banned from commenting there.

How about OIL?

I can't be the only one to have seen Reuter's election day headline Oil Up to $50 as Bush Leads Early Vote. Or the Nov 3 headline Oil Surges Back to $51 as Bush Nears Win. Or this one. et. cetera... Until the tide changed. Journalistic integrity demanded some rationalizing... and a wavering market gave rise to a bit of nihilistic hope... and even outright defeatist triumphalism... but finally even Reuters learned that yes, there is great cathartic appeal to mercilessly beating a dead horse named Bushitler... (yes... a but is coming...) "But the market quickly refocused on more fundamental matters..." Nuh, uh!

This is one poor Red-state Rube scratching my thick neanderthal head with calloused knuckles trying to figure out how oil's plummeting price suddenly has no political connection at all. Let me see if I can figure this out now. Bush NOT dipping into our strategic reserve, and instead building it up, was a good thing? Who could have guessed? Hmmm... a man as nuanced as John Kerry surely had this pegged, right? Well... in a word... No.

JOBS anyone?

One of the left's biggest sticks this year was that Bush was going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs. They had this right at least, yes? Hmmm... maybe Bill over at INDC Journal isn't using that New Math (tm) that is so in Vogue with today's NEA.